Talk:Atkins diet/Archive 1

Nature of the Diet
"Although Atkins claimed that ketosis helped the body burn fat more easily, nutritionalists are quick to point out that the body will burn stored fat for energy whenever the calories taken in are less than those burned."

I'm thinking about cutting this argumentative statement out entirely: first of all, ketosis *is* burning fat, so, uh, burning fat helps the body to burn fat? The point is that when the body does not get enough carbohydrates for its energy needs, it starts to burn fat, either dietary fat or stored fat or both. That's not controversial at all.

And what are the nutritionists pointing out? "calories taken in" is not a good description of what the body does. We don't take in calories, we take in substances which, if burned to completion, will generate so much heat, i.e., so many "calories" (kilocalories, really, but that's usage for you.) So the nutritionists are saying that the body will burn *stored* fat whenever the food taken, as effectively digested, provides fewer calories than generated by all the various processes in the body which turn food into energy. But why is this considered an argument against what Atkins is saying? Yes, I've seen nutritionists be "quick to point [this] out," as if it were some brilliant point, but this seems to be part of the discredited argument that "a calorie is a calorie," as if the body was a bomb calorimeter that reduces everything, including fiber, to carbon dioxide, water, and ash, as if the various processes that the body uses to generate energy from oxidation were equally efficient. Atkins claims that fat has a "metabolic advantage," i.e., so many "calories" of fat are *not* equal to so many calories of carbohydrates, that the fat is, effectively, less fattening. Whether this is true or not, it is not a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, as I have seen claimed by 'experts' who should know better. Abd ulRahman Lomax 28 June 2005

the Views sections
''I'm taking out part of another critical claim: "In a study funded by Dr. Atkins himself, 70% of the people that could stick with the diet lost the ability to have a normal bowel movement." This statement is not supported by the evidence given. Losing an ability to have a normal bowel movement implies quite a bit more than a mere increase in the reported incidence of diarrhea and constipation in a population. I'm leaving the substantial information in, at least for the time being, even though it is not clear what it means: any change of diet can produce temporary diarrhea or constipation.''

''What we now have in the Views section is a mixture of views, facts, citations. What I just took out, if true, would not have been a "view," it would simply have been a fact that someone might use in a criticism. Abd ulRahman Lomax 5 Apr 2005''

I've started hacking away at the Views Critical section; I removed two particularly egregious comments. The first was a speculation about Atkins and kidney damage. The article cited did not establish anything more than a speculative inferential connection between the Atkins diet and kidney problems. The second was the report re Atkins death, which if I were not charitably inclined, I'd call a lie. If we are going to allow lies in the articles, at least they should be attributed!

Frankly, I don't like the Views sections at all, which have become an excuse to include highly controversial claims without any balance. There are arguments against the Atkins diet in the Views Critical which have become quite weak in the light of recent research, and that section seriously overstates the degree of "scientific consensus" against Atkins. The Mar. 15 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, for example, includes "the only study of the Atkins diet to have been conducted in the strictly controlled environment of a clinical research center where every calorie eaten and spent was measured. "In addition to the calorie reduction and weight loss, subjects experienced markedly improved glucose levels and insulin sensitivity, as well as lower triglycerides and cholesterol." On what do all those experts base the claim that Atkins is risky to heart health, if it lowers triglycerides and cholesterol? (This result is not isolated, other studies have shown similar results.) See http*//www*temple*edu/news_media/AtkinsDiabetes*html  (disabled link to clean up spam --Ownlyanangel 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Rather than Views for and against sections, which is reductionist, we should have an examination of the issues, with a statement, for each individual issue, of common views, attributed, together with evidence. However, fixing this is not just a matter of an easy edit, and I don't have time for more at the moment. Abd ulRahman Lomax 3 Apr 2005

''I've edited the Views In Favor section to remove extreme POV-ness. I don't think the diet has been "proven safe," there simply is not enough evidence to make that statement. There is anecdotal evidence from Atkins' practice and the practice and experience of others, and there is now *some* scientific evidence, but this does not rise to the level of proof. In particular subtle effects and long-term dangers could easily have escaped notice. (By the way, I'm betting my life on the diet, but I'm also monitoring my condition; I've had one cardiac CT scan and will have another after perhaps a year.)'' Abd ulRahman Lomax 3 Mar 2005

I find the Views In Favor and Views Opposed sections a bit irritating. They seem to be full of unsubstantiated claims. Is being in a Views section an excuse for being (1) unsubstantiated and (2) not attributed, not even passively -- i.e., as it would be if it were said "it is claimed that ...."? An example:

The Atkins website and many proponents claim that there is no link between the Atkins Diet and kidney damage; however, the following peer-reviewed studies and other reputable sources contradict this claim: ''c. People in affluent societies commonly lose about 30 percent of their kidney function by their 80’s (J Gerentol 31:155, 1976). And the amount of protein typically consumed in the American diet, 12% to 15% protein, is probably a partial cause. (New Eng Jrnl Med 307:652, 1982) Atkins Dieters, as illustrated in the research referred to in letter (b), often get even more protein than that.''

The articles cited do NOT establish a link. They may establish a hypothesis only. I.e., Atkins may involve higher protein content than the typical American diet, and protein is speculated to be a partial cause of kidney function loss, therefore long-term Atkins may lead to kidney function loss. But no such connection has been demonstrated (to my knowledge). Properly, a study does not "contradict" anything; rather a study reports facts which may be interpreted by someone as a contradiction. Contradictions are a matter for conclusions, and are generally not a matter of information. Witness A may report that he saw John shoot Fred, and Witness B may report having seen John somewhere else at the time. These are not contradictory testimony! Rather, the *conclusion* that John shot Fred may *seem* to be contradicted. Either witness may have been in error as to the identification of John, or there is an error in the time, or there are other possibilities (besides perjury).

Much of the criticism of the Atkins diet seems to be based on such hypotheses. Just as there is little formal substantiation of the safety of the Atkins diet (i.e., through controlled studies), there is perhaps even less substantiation of its harm; rather there are many who claim, essentially, that it should be harmful based on common assumptions, such as the assumption that saturated fat, per se, is harmful. But what if saturated fat is only harmful within the context of a diet ample in carbohydrates? If this were true, there could be studies aplenty showing the harmfulness of "fat" -- as I think there are -- but still the Atkins diet, which creates a different context for fat, might not be harmful. What if, with respect to the kidney damage claim, a diet high in protein increases the risk of kidney damage, but not if the diet is also low in carbohydrate? Until this is studied, we do not know for sure. However, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that the diet is reasonably safe, and some controlled research about short-term effects. Because of the well-known problems with conclusions based on anecdotal evidence, it can only be said that there is little or no proof of long-term safety, just as there is little or no proof of harm.

So I'd like to address those sections, but think that some opportunity for discussion is appropriate before starting to hack away.... One idea is to tag, in the article, objectionable material as being allegedly POV, an intermediate step before removing them, allowing those with opposing opinions an opportunity to object and/or edit them. What do you think? Abd ulRahman Lomax


 * There is so little "science" in standard nutritional practice that these unsubstantiated claims and counterclaims may be a fair representation of the state of affairs and perhaps should be left alone. I doubt you will get anywhere with the protein/kidney damage hypothesis.  Most of the supportive research is in lab animals die of kidney failure in "old age" more often than humans do.  Despite the decline in kidney function with age (not conclusively linked to protein), it does not seem to be the weak link in human longevity, the lab animal problem with protein seems solved in humans.  In fact, even in end stage kidney failure,protein restriction is controversial.  In regards to the harmfullness of "fat" in the diet, while there is some evidence that some saturated fatty acids are harmful and some are beneficial, there appears to be no support for any generalization that fats are more harmful than their calories, although given the surplus of calories, an argument might be made that they are more harmful gram for gram, but calorie for calorie, non-fibre carbs are far more harmful.  Very few population studies reach the isocaloric standard.--Silverback 16:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--

I moved the Misconceptions section to the talk page, it reads so POV. --Sgfhk321 19:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That was the wrong action. If you think the section is POV and non-encyclopedic (and I agree) then make the effort to clean it up. I will now put that section back, and practice what I preach by doing just that. Nickco3 15:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I replaced some of the Misconceptions section removed by Nicko3, and cleaned it up a bit, removing or editing most, I hope, of what was POV. Nicko3 had eliminated the material on the difference between ketosis and ketoacidosis, and my own observation of Atkins criticism has found that the confusion between the two is very common. Dr. Agatston (Cardiologist and author of the South Beach Diet) notes that there seems to be no evidence that ketosis, per se, is harmful; whereas the assertion that it is I find common in critical material. (And as was argued in the Misconceptions section, ketosis is a normal and necessary function of the body, and is indeed essential in any weight loss involving the reduction of body fat. However, I did not replace that argument precisely because it was an argument, not presented in an NPOV manner. I think we should be very careful about the Misconceptions section because it is quite easily read as an argument in favor -- since it will contradict some criticisms. However, where a criticism is *clearly* based on a misconception or on misinformation, it is not POV to point out the facts.) Abd ulRahman Lomax

--

I snipped the following para:


 * Many who practice Atkins on a regular basis are prone to a variety of unpleasant side effects such as bad breath, constipation, gas and bloating, and fatigue. It is very important to contact a doctor or nutritionist before making drastic dietary and lifestyle changes such as Atkins.

It was in the "views in favour of the diet" section, where it clearly doesn't belong. In addition it makes several unsupported generalizations and adopts an advisory tone that is at odds with the rest of the article and Wikipedia in general.

chocolateboy 17:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

in particular countries in East Asia such as Japan, China and Thailand, where rice is often consumed at each meal This statement is not true, I lived in southern Japan for 3 months and they do not eat a bowl of rice with each meal. One day at the company cafateria I ordered a bowl of rice with lunch and was told the rice makes you fat. As proof, they stated that sumo wrestlers eat a lot of rice. Most of what they eat is unprocessed (often not even cooked) sea vegtables and sea animals. Mike

''One day at the company cafateria I ordered a bowl of rice with lunch and was told the rice makes you fat. As proof, they stated that sumo wrestlers eat a lot of rice. Most of what they eat is unprocessed (often not even cooked) sea vegtables and sea animals.''  This has to be one of the most logically unsound statements I've ever seen. Polished white rice is consumed in MASSIVE quantities in Japan. I've been here 8 years, which if I daresay is quite a bit longer than three months, and you would be hard pressed indeed to find any kind of food establishment anywhere at all in Japan that doesn't serve rice.

The bit of "proof" about sumo is especially ridiculous.

--61.195.58.8 10:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Genjuro

Misconceptions about the diet
Why was this section deleted? Rosemary Amey 19:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because it was a POV nightmare. Exploding Boy 02:08, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

As the original author of the section, I respectfully disagree. It's necessary to inform people that eating low-carb foods is different from being on a low-carb diet. I fail to see where my section was not neutral. I've put it back and cleaned it up a bit. I don't want to start an edit war here, but I would like an explanation. batkins.


 * It's still non-neutral. Just the very name of the section sets of alarm bells.  It reads like an ad for Atkins.  The information belongs, if anywhere, in the Views in favour section.  Exploding Boy 06:46, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the information (that following the Atkins nutritional approach means eating low-carb all the time, not just on occasion) should be included but reworded. I tried to modify the claim that the diet "works" a bit but it still needs help. Rosemary Amey 00:08, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm personally not a supporter of the diet, so I definitely don't want to sound like an advertisement for Atkins (despite the fact that I share a last name with its creator :).  I just think people need to know that simply buying  trendy low-carb foods is not equivalent to going on a ketosis-inducing diet.  I'll take another look at it, though.  batkins

What isn't mentioned about the Atkins Diet is that most of the initial weight loss is due to water loss; one symptom of ketosis is frequent urination. Also, with such a dismal intake of carbohydrates, it is possible that you can lose lean muscle mass which will eventually slow down your metabolism and jeopardize your health. See: ketosis

As with most fad diets, the Atkins Diet lacks balance. I'm not a medical doctor or a nutritionist, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I believe that a good balance of reasonable caloric restriction, reduction of fat intake, and moderate exercise will probably yield better, safer results over the long haul.

And to comment on the following...

Although carbohydrate intake is increased over time, the initial 20g will result in lean muscle loss. In fact, this is another major portion of the initial weight loss, in addition to the water. There is a reason why the FDA has a 290g carb recommendation on a 2000 calorie per day diet. As another aside, if the entire goal is to partake in a healthy, balanced diet, why not just start off there? Starting out on a fast, "easy" diet only makes going back to a regular diet harder. No, the pounds might not just fly off, but at least you won't have to worry about damaging your kidneys, liver, and heart (cholesterol's a killer), and if you learn to live with it while you're losing weight, odds are you will stick with it when you finally stop.

Ok, I'll bite.

I suppose that the critics are correct when they suggest that the Atkins diet as they have presented it here it is bad for you. But, as in all things, there is another side to the story.

First of all, when I speak about the diet, I speak from the perspective of someone who has had an overwhelmingly positive experience on the diet. Over the course of the last 9 months, I've lost nearly 50 pounds. I did have carb cravings for the first month. But mostly, it's been easy for me. I've done it eating foods I enjoy, and I haven't had to count calories, measure portions, or feel like I'm starving myself.

Secondly, to the many noders here who say the diet is bad for you, I say 'Worse that what?' Let's do a quick examination of just what I've given up:

1. Bread, pastries, buns

Hmm... these products are made with white flour. Now I'm not a nutritionist, but it's my understanding that white flour is a really highly processed foodstuff with little nutritional value. Some people suggest that it's actually bad for you.

2. French fries

I think there are few people here that would argue against the idea that giving up french fries is a good idea. And, when I'm faced with french fries as a side dish, I always ask the server to substitute steamed veggies. So not only have I eliminated something that most would agree is exceedingly bad for you, but I have substituted something that is exceedingly good for you. I'm eating more broccoli, cauliflower, and carrots then I ever have in the past.

3. Candy, Desert, Sugar, Ice Cream

Foods made with processed sugar are yet another really bad for youtm thing that I've given up on the diet. 'Nuff said about that one.

What else have I done?

The diet suggests that drinking a lot of water on the diet is crucial, so I drink about 80 oz. a day now. I take a high quality vitamin supplement. I feel great, I look great, I have more energy and I've started exercising on a regular basis. As I approach my goal, I will also begin to add 'good' carbs back in, like pasta and fruit. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the changes I've made are in fact very positive, healthy choices. My diet before Atkins was just awful. I'm a health nut now, by comparison.

The Low Carbohydrate High Protein Diet also refered to as the Atkins Diet, is a diet in which the dieter cuts down carbohydrate intake. Carbohydrates being bread, pasta and rice while increasing the intake of fats and protein. The diet works because the intake of carbohydrates is cut and the body has to use other sources for engery; the other sources of energy being fats and proteins. The body notices the lack of carbohydrates and changes the energy source to fat, causing weight loss. While on the diet, one doesn't need to exercise more than normal. Although, exercise does help speed along the weight loss process. Most people notice a feeling of withdrawl when first going on the diet because of the lack of carbohydrates and sugar.

Foods that will but a damper on your diet:

Bread Rice Pasta Sugar of any kind Foods that would be helpful on your diet:

Meat Cheese Diet Soda Poultry Fish So, in other words, you can't eat much. Many people have had success with this particular diet. Personally, I myself have been on the diet and have witnessed awesome results! I have lost THIRTY-FIVE pounds in eight months. Most of my weight loss has occured in three months though. I recently went back to school after a summer of hiding and everyone had great comments about the NEW ME

Atkins dieters often talk accuse their critics of being part of a conspiracy by the sugar lobby and those with a vested interest in rival diets.

Let's look at this critically: The food industry is producer driven. Farmers produce the food that their climate, soil and subsidies allow them to produce economically.

Food processers repackage this food into a variety of products. If a particular food that the farmers produce is unwanted it often continues to be produced, and becomes a cheap bulking ingredient. Skimmed and semi-skimmed milk appeal to health conscious people, but the fat removed is not thrown away. It goes into other, cheaper processed foods. Whey is another good example, a by product of butter.

Agriculture in developed countries is heavily geared towards animal products. Grain yields are high, and profit margins are tight. Feeding surplus grain to animals increases its value, by converting it into animal protein (and fat). Subsidies encourage this. Over the last 50 years there has been a huge growth in the production of grain fed cows, pigs, chickens and the associated eggs and milk. This is not driven by the consumer. It is also possible to extract oil from soya and maize, and also glucose (corn syrup) and feed the residues to animals.

When prices are low, it is useful to be able to store foodstuffs for long periods until the market picks up. Refined cereals (white rice, white flour etc.) store well. Bugs don't eat them much (what does that tell you?). Sugar also stores almost indefinately. Millers converted their mills to producing entirely white flour in the 1920's, when white bread was an expensive luxury. Vitamins were discovered shortly after this, but the food processors did some morally dubious and flawed experiments on orphans to prove that white bread was as good as wholemeal.

Fruit and vegetables require a lot of human labour to produce and they don't keep well. This makes them expensive.

Put this together, and you get the western diet. Lots of fat and protein, far in excess of the bodies requirements (surplus protein turns to fat), served with refined carbohydrates (white bread, pasta, sugar etc.), a variety of chemical additives, so we don't notice how bland and unvarying this diet really is. Plus small amounts of fruit and vegetables, mainly the ones that can be transported and stored easily, and produced with the minimum of labour. Fresh green leafy vegetables are hard to obtain. They wilt within a day.

The food industry would love us to eat more sugar, and processed carbohydrates. They would also like us to eat more meat, eggs and dairy products. The Atkins conspiracy theory is half right and half wrong. The meat industry strongly supports the Atkins diet.

Compared to most of the world (with a few exceptions e.g. Inuits, Masai and Mongols), westerners eat lots of protein and relatively little carbohydrate.

Meat is not inherently bad, but grain fed animals produce far more saturated fat. Refined carbohydrates are inherently bad for you. The Japanese eat white rice in large quantities, and remain healthy, but their diet is very varied. Elsewhere refined carbohydrates are associated with malnutrition. It is very difficult to eat a balanced diet if you eat large amounts of carbohydrate with all the vitamins and minerals removed. On an unbalanced diet, you are more likely to eat more in an attempt to obtain the necessary nutrition, or smoke to suppress your appetite.

Protein good, carbohydrate bad and vice versa are both simplistic and wrong.

Concerning the following text, in the "views in favor" section:

''Low-carbohydrate diets have been the subject of heated debate in medical circles for three decades [1]. They are still controversial and largely unproven by science - until recently, no serious research had been done on Atkins or other low carbohydrate diets. However, proponents cite anecdotal evidence which shows such diets help participants to lose weight.''

Firstly, this is a view in opposition of the diet, not one in favor...so I think it belongs in the appropriate section. Secondly, recent or not, research is research. And I think two studies in the NEJM, both supporting the Atkins Diet, qualify as "serious".

I'm moving the "controvesial" part to the negative views section, and I'm deleting the rest because it's just incorrect.

I also added a few more entries to the misconceptions section. And just so nobody thinks I'm COMPLETELY biased, I even added one more entry to the negative views section.

I have lost THIRTY-FIVE pounds in eight months. using personal experiences is no reason to endorse the product. Come back and talk to me when your nephrons have shut down from trying to remove all the protien in your blood. Question, is your urine always yellow? and cloudy? because then your nephrons are starting to let other things through. In general you can go into kidney failure much quicker on this diet. If you keep it up, please include instructions in your will to send a copy of the autopsy to wiki, so we can keep track of long time atkins dieters causes of death. in addition, if your body-type (if you believe in that) is away from its "normal" body-type, it becomes reletively easy to return to that original centre. I know people whom can fluctuate their body weight by upwards of 10 pounds a week as needed, but more than that, and they start to feel bad. part of it is water weight, and the other intercostial fat tissues. they just burn them off.

Most people notice a feeling of withdrawl... lack of carbohydrates and sugar. well as carbs are the source of energy for the highest performances, of course you feel withdrawn, most people are not built to only eat fats and protein.


 * Strawman argument: nobody eats "just fats and protein". Avoid refined carbs, flour and sugar, people are not built to eat them, either.

Benefits for diabetics?
I've removed this paragraph. Could someone please give a source (or sources) to back up this claim.

There are reports indicating that studies have shown benefits for heart/stroke as well as diabetic patients, and that many experts are already discussing a low carb nutrition for diabetic patients who may then be able to live their lives without any insulin.

AlistairMcMillan 17:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * citations of studies would be nice. However, one the face of it the statements appear true.  I've been following the literature, the improvements in surogate markers, risk factors like low HDL or high triglycerides have been reported multiple times and are also an important markers of risk in diabetes.  Add to that, the law of small numbers of insulin dependent diabetic, it is easy to tritrate insulin and thus control blood sugar levels when the amounts of carbs are small, because when you are wrong, even by 50%, you are wrong by less because the numbers are small, there is a book on this, but I forget the name and author.  I can spot anything that doesn't fit, but don't have time to provide the references myself.--Silverback 23:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW, that "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie" link, is actually a fairly good review of the current status.--Silverback 23:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ouch! I just realized the above link was too Dr. Bernstein's site, and the refreshed my memory that he was the author of the book that I had mention.  The article there is by someone else however.--Silverback 23:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've taken this bit out: ''Also, Atkins and his supporters have claimed that America's current obesity epidemic is due to the rise of a low-fat, high-carb diet; but this is contradicted by data which show that calories from fat AND carbs to have risen over the decades ([www*usda*gov/factbook/chapter2*htm]). These data only lend support to those contending that calorie-reduction, not ketosis, is how Atkins dieters are losing weight, and that weight can be lost more safely, i.e. without ketosis.'' I read the link presented, and it contradicted what was being claimed. It said fat consumption has declined, and refined carbs gone up. This data supports Atkins position. (disabled the link to clean up spam --Ownlyanangel 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

This bit doesn't seem to be true either: the lowest incidence of heart disease in the world is amongst people who have the lowest overall cholesterol levels ... Good [HDL] cholesterol is good when counter-balancing ‘bad’ [LDL] cholesterol, but low levels of both ... are better. It seems low levels of HDL are always a risk factor. I've taken it out.

Let's review the article and clean it up
Some months ago, my doctor suggested that I go on the South Beach diet. The South Beach diet could be considered "Atkins Lite." It is low-carb, but it emphasizes fats which are more generally recognized as less harmful than saturated fats, and, in some cases, of positive benefit. The South Beach diet does not attempt to induce ketosis, even though Dr. Agatston, the cardiologist who originated the diet, notes that "in otherwise healthy overweight or obese individuals, [he is] aware of no evidence that ketosis is a danger."

So I started South Beach. But my wife had enjoyed some considerable success with the Atkins diet, and she occasionally served me Atkins meals. They were much more satisfying! So I started researching Atkins. And I was rather horrified by what I found. Which was a great deal of expert opinion, from experts, in some cases, who I personally respected, that seemed to be little more than "Everyone knows that...." And then I saw that recent research seemed to be confirming much of what Dr. Atkins suspected. And that more and more experts were acknowledging the extent of our ignorance about how human nutrition really works. In particular, the research purportedly showing the harm of saturated fats apparently did not consider the effect of dietary context; i.e., such fats might be harmful in the context of a high-carb diet, the norm for Americans, but not harmful in the context of a low-carb diet, because the metabolism is functioning differently in the latter context. And my own cholesterol had gone through the roof probably precisely because I was eating high-fat foods (including Atkins meals) without limiting my own carbohydrate intake. Are saturated fats harmful when the body is either in ketosis or is borderline? I don't think anyone really knows the answer for sure.

So I tried the Atkins diet. I found it surprisingly easy. It is a lot easier to do without the sugar in coffee than the cream! I still don't know the effect on my blood lipids, we will see soon. I had a cardiac CT scan and a stress test, so I know I have some time to play with this, I'm in no apparent immediate risk of a cardiac event. However, one effect has been clear and easy to note: I lost over twenty pounds in about two months. I was not obese to begin with, but I am probably closer to an ideal weight now, given my level of exercise, which is, shall we say, less than ideal. And my own problem with the diet is really that it is very tempting to stay in at least mild ketosis, it is much easier than trying to count carbs more precisely (which is what Atkins really recommends for long-term diet, increasing carbs substantially above the ketosis-inducing level). One of the ways that Atkins seems to work is that it fats may be much more satisfying, calorie for calorie, than carbohydrates, so a high-fat diet low-carb diet can be more satisfying than a low-fat, "normal" carb diet. And thus the dieter almost automatically restricts total caloric intake. Indeed, this may be why counting carbs works more easily than counting calories. The fat calories tend to take care of themselves through natural appetite.

(And the commonly-expressed view that "a calorie is a calorie" is astonishingly unfounded in fact. Cellulose, for example, has caloric value but is indigestible by humans! We are not bomb calorimeters.)

Why am I telling this story here? Because one of the places I found when I was looking for information was the Wikipedia article. And, while much of it is good, it is also loaded with POV comments. On both sides. The section "Misconceptions about the Diet" should be limited to true misconceptions, that is, common opinions about the diet that are based on ignorance of what Atkins actually wrote and taught. There are plenty of these, and some of them are mentioned there. But there is also polemic there against Atkins critics. "That's crazy," for example, is something that will be said as an argument. The Misconceptions section, as with nearly all material in a Wikipedia article, should not be an argument, but should be informative. Arguments, if they are to be in the article at all, should be attributed, perhaps in a Views or Arguments section. And the present Views sections are full of unsubstantiated assertions. Isolating the Views sections, further, does not facilitate a real comparison between the views. The Views Critical of the Diet section contains something which is little more than a long list of references to critical opinions from prominent sources, hich is not a view critical of the diet, per se, it is rather a simple confirmation of what all sides acknowledge: the Atkins ideas challenged conventional wisdom (i.e., the views of the large majority of experts), and have been and remain highly controversial. The references belong in the references section, which could possibly be divided into Critical and Favorable sections, where a bias or general opinion/conclusion can be discerned, and Neutral sections. The Views Critical section of the article should present a summary of critical views, preferably all substantiated or sourced, such that reasonable proponents of the diet could agree, "Yes, these are the critical views." Similarly the Views in Favor.

And what a Wikipedia article can do is to distill a consensus from all this, where the participants in editing it are willing to allow the truth of what other sides say, without necessarily agreeing with the conclusions that other sides draw from the facts.

In any case, I think the article needs, in parts, some serious editing. I'd like to find the extent to which we can find consensus, perhaps by working on one issue at a time. So I intend to start that process. And, eventually, we should work on the overall structure. What think ye?

For now, I'd suggest that the introductory section is satisfactory. Agreed? AbdulRahman Lomax Feb. 8, 2005.

- Hmm. I think parts of that section are a little wordy and could do with revision. But I'll agree to satisfactory. Nickco3


 * I disagree about the references, unless you are good at footnotes, they should stay and guard the text they substantiate, this is the technique that works best when wiki tackles controversial subjects. It should be made easy to find the reference which substantiates each piece of information.  BTW, you are wrong about ketosis, all weight loss diets probably induce this state while adipose tissue is being lost.  Perhaps you are confusing it with Atkin's emphasis on ketonuria, or ketones in the urine, which is a deeper level of ketosis, more of a gimmick to give the dieter positive reinforcement, and to keep inform the dieter when they have been consuming more carbs than they think.--Silverback 23:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think Silverback is right about ketosis vs. ketouria. Atkins Induction phase is designed to introduce ketouria. However, my goal here is not to be right about this or that, but to improve the article, to make it more useful, more NPOV and less POV. So as to the "references," the ones I was writing about are in the Views Critical section, where there is a long list of people and institutions panning the diet. As I mentioned, the reader already knows that there will be many such people and institutions, from the introduction. Nothing is gained by the length of that list. And what appears there to be links, if followed, lead to stubs, empty Wikipedia articles. URLs to sources or fuller quotations would be far more useful to a reader. With a bit of work, I tracked down one article referenced. This is from the Views Critical section: j. Expressing a general sentiment was the conclusion: “runs counter to all the current evidence-based dietary recommendations.” --Journal of the American College of Cardiology 43 (2004): p.725 Now, I only found an abstract, not the full article. But immediately I notice that the quotation is not a conclusion, but a simple observation, though it is qualified in a way that is not entirely accurate, for there are "recommendations" being made by knowledgeable people, based on their own clinical experience (which is a kind of evidence), and there is *some* additional evidence; however, setting that aside, the article itself, in the abstract, essentially concludes that, for the present, "Because of the nutritional deficiencies inherent in LC-HP diets and the absence of long-term data on their efficacy and safety, they cannot be recommended in place of currently advocated low-fat, low-calorie diets that have an established record of safety and efficacy." What this boils down to is that insufficient controlled research has been done to prove the low-carb, high-protein diets to be safe and effective, beyond doubt. And I'll agree that anyone who wants to try such a diet should be aware that it runs counter to established wisdom, which, after all, is not always wrong! (However, there is also little evidence that the Atkins diet, followed as recommended, is *actually* harmful. Instead there is inference and prediction that it *should* be harmful. But my point about the list of references is that a list of links with comments would be far more useful, and less polemic. I'd think a really good article would try to link to all the studies and citations on the subject, directly or indirectly, organizing them so that it is easy to find information about some aspect of the controversy. AbdulRahman Lomax Feb. 8, 2005. BTW, this talk page is getting long. Perhaps we could cut some of the old, obsolete discussion? Or move it elsewhere?

''Okay, I've moved some old material from the beginning to a wiki at atkins*beyondpolitics*org -- If someone has a better idea, by all means, I won't be offended if the edit is reverted, as long as *something* is done to make the current talk page active and relevant. The wiki at the URL mentioned is open and may be used for more detailed work on the Atkins Nut. App. page. I plan to move more material, including quite a bit of what I've written recently...'' AbdulRahman Lomax (disabled the link for spam purposes --Ownlyanangel 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC))


 * I agree. The current talk page is overly long and needs trimming. If you want to read over dead and settled arguments you can always browse this page's history. Perhaps there should be a notice of some sort at the top of the page. Nickco3


 * I disagree. he shouldn't have deleted it, if he didn't know how to archive it by the standard methods.  I don't know how to archive myself, but then I don't want to. I have no objections to long talk pages, wastes disk space, since the text is now in the archive AND the history of the current page.  It is easy enough to go to the bottom of the page for recent stuff, or do compares of the history to find new interleaved additions.--Silverback 09:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

''Perhaps I "shouldn't" have; however, I still don't see any alternative proposed. I knew about History, that whatever I deleted would still be there. And, of course, I was not eactly "deleting" it, rather I was moving it, and the intention is to keep it together as a corpus, accessible quickly and easily. If that turns out to be unnecessary, fine.''

''As to the long talk page, speaking as someone who only very recently came to this page, the length is a serious obstacle to a newcomer. It is *not* easy to go to the bottom, it is not even clear that new material is necessarily going to be at the bottom, one could put it anywhere. And, indeed, chronological order is probably not a great idea, except within a discussion of a particular section. Again, since anyone can reverse what I do in transferring material elsewhere, I don't see a reason to restrain the action.''

''What I'd suggest is appropriate to remain on the Talk page is (1) consensus decisions regarding the article, not necessarily all of the process by which we got there -- that can be accessible for those interested -- and (2) active process toward reaching consensus. BTW, much of what I wrote above I consider probably unimportant for long survival on the active Talk page. It was just by way of introduction. Note also that the atkins.beyondpolitics.org wiki is open for use in organizing our discussions if anyone else sees a need.''

''I should also mention that every time I started to edit the Talk page, I got a message that the page was over 32K, and would I please shorten it or move it elsewhere.... So I was *also* heeding a request from whoever set up this wiki. -- AbdulRahman Lomax 11 Feb, 2005.''

American Journal of Medicine article
Someone should probably mention that the AJM article listed in the "pros" section was funded by: "The Atkins Center for Complementary Medicine".

''Sigh. I think it was mentioned in the past on the Discussion page. That doesn't belong in the article itself, unless one wants to list the funding sources for all the articles cited.... It is ironic that one of the criticisms levelled at Atkins was "Why didn't he do research to prove his views?" And then, when the Atkins Center funded research, it is, of course, suspect for that reason. Yes, the Atkins Center may have something to gain from positive results, but they would also have much to lose from negative results. Obviously, they were willing to take the risk. Perhaps critics of Atkins might consider doing the same? Perhaps the vendors of low-fat ice-cream would cough up the funds. Or, indeed, the makers of the row after row of highly-processed, high-carb foods that fill the grocery stores.''


 * So, in other words, it is perfectly fine and sound practice that Atkins didn't research his method beforehand, instead proceeding to cash off hugely with a "wonder diet", the research of which he'd fund later on when the pressure of financial advantage was on him? As much as I love the theoretical food industry conspiracies, let's not use them to shade away other likewise options.

''Sigh again. Atkins was a physician in private practice. He did not invent low-carb dieting, though he did provide some theoretical basis for it. He saw it work, with many patients, over a long period of time. He was not a research doctor. As to "food industry conspiracies," I certainly did not mention one. I merely suggested that it is disengenuous to criticize research on low-carb diets, performed, by the way, by a *critic* of low-carb dieting, on the basis that Atkins funded it, while not applying the same standard to the promoters of other foods. Food research is *expensive.* The whole low-fat dogma was foisted on us by political forces, based on epidemiological studies, i.e., something only slightly better than a wild guess, and the argument was made at the time that, "Sure, it hasn't been proven that lowering fat in the diet will make people healthier, but it can't hurt, and if the fat in our diet is responsible for the high incidence of heart disease, and we don't make the recommendations, many will needlessly die, so, in spite of the objections of the scientists, we are going to go ahead and make the recommendations. To prove the value of lowering fat will take research, and that is expensive and would take too long." Atkins *took a risk* by funding research on his diet. What if it had shown that low-carb dieting was useless or harmful? This was not the kind of research done by too many drug companies, where inconvenient results get buried.

Corporate distinction
I'm having trouble understanding what this article is about. Is this article about the diet or is it about the company which promotes and sells products around the diet? Perhaps we should pull a google and split this into Atkins Nutritional Approach and Atikins Nutritional Company? Edits like this reflect the double meaning of this article. Thoughts? This link is Broken 19:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Clearly, the article is about the diet, as all the content as well as the title indicates. However, there is some inconsistant use of the word "Atkins" throughout, in particular, the word is used to refer to Dr. Atkins as well as the diet itself.  I took the step of making all references to the man read "Dr. Atkins" and left the unadorned "Atkins" references for the diet itself, but perhaps there's a better solution? Kutulu 15:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Date of Introduction?
When was the Atkins Diet developed? Did it have any precursors? Paul, in Saudi 08:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Question re: NWCR citation
According to the main article, the National Weight Control Registry concluded that only 1 percent of its long time losers were confirmed to be on Atkins. I googled around for the citation, and a bunch of web pages claim that the source for this statement is "Wyatt HR and others. Long term weight loss and very low carbohydrate diets in the National Weight Control Registry. Obesity Research 8(suppl 1):87S., 2000."

However, (1) Holly R Wyatt doesn't list this article in www*uchsc*edu/nutrition/WyattJortberg/wyattbio*htm; and (2) Obesity Research magazine doesn't even list a year 2000 supplement on www*obesityresearch*org/contents-by-date*2000*shtml. (disabling link to clean up spam --Ownlyanangel 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

I would feel a lot more comfortable about this citation if someone could pull it and confirm that it says what the Atkins page currently claims. Does anyone have access to it?TheronJ 04:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)